Public Support for Racial Profiling in Airports

Results From a Statewide Poll

Shaun L. Gabbidon, George E. Higgins, Matthew Nelson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article examines the public opinion of randomly selected Pennsylvanians on their support for racial profiling at airports. The 2009 Penn State Poll revealed that most Pennsylvanians felt that profiling was occurring at airports-but did not support the practice. Building on prior research, the research introduced three new measures into the area of public opinion on racial profiling. These included the role of perceived effectiveness, perceived discrimination, and ethical values in influencing public opinion on racial profiling. Respondents who felt racial profiling in airports was effective and was discriminatory were more likely to believe it was occurring. In terms of support for racial profiling, those who felt the practice was discriminatory and unethical were less likely to support it, whereas conversely, those who felt the practice was effective tended to support its use. We argue that the public needs to be better informed about the strategies that have been proven to be most effective in reducing the threat of terrorist attacks.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)254-269
Number of pages16
JournalCriminal Justice Policy Review
Volume23
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2012

Fingerprint

public support
airport
public opinion
discrimination
threat
Values

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Law

Cite this

Gabbidon, Shaun L. ; Higgins, George E. ; Nelson, Matthew. / Public Support for Racial Profiling in Airports : Results From a Statewide Poll. In: Criminal Justice Policy Review. 2012 ; Vol. 23, No. 2. pp. 254-269.
@article{c8b0bbad23a84acdb4ce0519db6e0dbf,
title = "Public Support for Racial Profiling in Airports: Results From a Statewide Poll",
abstract = "This article examines the public opinion of randomly selected Pennsylvanians on their support for racial profiling at airports. The 2009 Penn State Poll revealed that most Pennsylvanians felt that profiling was occurring at airports-but did not support the practice. Building on prior research, the research introduced three new measures into the area of public opinion on racial profiling. These included the role of perceived effectiveness, perceived discrimination, and ethical values in influencing public opinion on racial profiling. Respondents who felt racial profiling in airports was effective and was discriminatory were more likely to believe it was occurring. In terms of support for racial profiling, those who felt the practice was discriminatory and unethical were less likely to support it, whereas conversely, those who felt the practice was effective tended to support its use. We argue that the public needs to be better informed about the strategies that have been proven to be most effective in reducing the threat of terrorist attacks.",
author = "Gabbidon, {Shaun L.} and Higgins, {George E.} and Matthew Nelson",
year = "2012",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0887403411398305",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "254--269",
journal = "Criminal Justice Policy Review",
issn = "0887-4034",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "2",

}

Public Support for Racial Profiling in Airports : Results From a Statewide Poll. / Gabbidon, Shaun L.; Higgins, George E.; Nelson, Matthew.

In: Criminal Justice Policy Review, Vol. 23, No. 2, 01.06.2012, p. 254-269.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Public Support for Racial Profiling in Airports

T2 - Results From a Statewide Poll

AU - Gabbidon, Shaun L.

AU - Higgins, George E.

AU - Nelson, Matthew

PY - 2012/6/1

Y1 - 2012/6/1

N2 - This article examines the public opinion of randomly selected Pennsylvanians on their support for racial profiling at airports. The 2009 Penn State Poll revealed that most Pennsylvanians felt that profiling was occurring at airports-but did not support the practice. Building on prior research, the research introduced three new measures into the area of public opinion on racial profiling. These included the role of perceived effectiveness, perceived discrimination, and ethical values in influencing public opinion on racial profiling. Respondents who felt racial profiling in airports was effective and was discriminatory were more likely to believe it was occurring. In terms of support for racial profiling, those who felt the practice was discriminatory and unethical were less likely to support it, whereas conversely, those who felt the practice was effective tended to support its use. We argue that the public needs to be better informed about the strategies that have been proven to be most effective in reducing the threat of terrorist attacks.

AB - This article examines the public opinion of randomly selected Pennsylvanians on their support for racial profiling at airports. The 2009 Penn State Poll revealed that most Pennsylvanians felt that profiling was occurring at airports-but did not support the practice. Building on prior research, the research introduced three new measures into the area of public opinion on racial profiling. These included the role of perceived effectiveness, perceived discrimination, and ethical values in influencing public opinion on racial profiling. Respondents who felt racial profiling in airports was effective and was discriminatory were more likely to believe it was occurring. In terms of support for racial profiling, those who felt the practice was discriminatory and unethical were less likely to support it, whereas conversely, those who felt the practice was effective tended to support its use. We argue that the public needs to be better informed about the strategies that have been proven to be most effective in reducing the threat of terrorist attacks.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84861941325&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84861941325&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0887403411398305

DO - 10.1177/0887403411398305

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 254

EP - 269

JO - Criminal Justice Policy Review

JF - Criminal Justice Policy Review

SN - 0887-4034

IS - 2

ER -